[Joe Hancock]

A post-round discussion got me thinking about this. At Lost Dunes, I hit a shot to the 2nd green, and ended up on the wrong side of a major disecting contour. I was dead. It would take a miracle to make birdie, and a minor miracle to salvage par. I did neither.

In the follow-up discussion, the question posed to me was, "did you hit a good shot?". I obviously said no, but really, from a good drive and 180-ish left, it wasn't a bad shot, either.

So, the question is, do any of you feel that being on the green should at least present you with a reasonable opportunity for par, or is a bogey accepetable punishment for merely being adequate, not perfect on the approach shot?

If it is a fair element of green design, how many are appropriate on any given course?

Not looking for vindication or validation, just a thought provoking situation.

Joe

[ed_getka]

Having played Lost Dunes and knowing how wild those greens are I can sympathize with your plight. Tom Doak's goal when he plays there is simply not to three putt I've been told (and he knows the holes better than anyone I suspect).
   Ending up in the wrong place a few times is inevitable at Lost Dunes and you just have to minimize your losses. For greens that are fun and challenging to putt, I will gladly accept a few three putts.
   I don't think LD is one of Tom's better routings, with a fair amount of walking involved due mostly to water hazards. Also, the forced carries off otherwise appropriate tees for ones game is a bit overdone there I feel. You certainly wouldn't want to play that course in your 60's, between the carries, the water, and the tall thick grass used in the deep rough. In spite of all that I still give the course high marks because of the brilliance of the greens and surrounds. If you can putt confidently at LD, you can putt anywhere.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Good philosophical question.

Obviously, the scorecard mentality guys think that any green should offer the standard two putt, and a good chance at birdie from anywhere on the putting surface!  So, I wouldn't put too many of the kind of greens you describe on a course, and would be careful where I put them.

My first design in Atlanta finished with a 4 tier, reachable par 5, where my thought was you had to go for the green in two in self defense to assure par!

On a recent remodel I have a Par 3 with severe green contours, a maximum 130 yard play with a wild green.  It has two valleys coming off the front, one a foot deep, but the other several feet deep.  Its very possible on that short hole to three putt after reaching the green.  I like the idea of a guy mentally tabulating possible birdies, and almost chalking one up when reading the 130 yard figure, only to walk away with a hard fought par.

I think the dividing line on green contours may be a case where the green doesn't allow you to keep putt no. 1 on the putting surface!  I have told the story here of being recognized at a Stars game, and damn near being tossed out of the upper deck for a putt another fan missed at Cowboys on the second green.  Somehow, my answer of "well, you need to be below the pin on that portion of the green" did not go down any better than his cheezy nachos.....

After that, a few non 2 putt greens would be acceptable in most designs, but they should be rare, since so many fixate on the standard two putt.  The argument against is that the famous Stitwell Park by MacKenzie is long gone, and there is a reason why - a greens chairman five putted, and we all know its not his fault!

 

[Bruce_Matthews]

Joe-
Is not par considered for perfect play on the hole?
Knowing your game, a bogey is is not fun.
But looking for a reward of par for an average approach sometimes will not be there.
I'd say lost dunes is one up in the match at that point.
I'll wager you were still very close to par for the round.
 -Bruce

[Dan Kelly]

The more three-putt possibilities there are, the better -- particularly as players get longer and longer.

Of course, I'm likely BIASED in that, because putting (even without having adopted the world-famous CLAW) is the best element of my so-called game.

Jeff -- How many greens at The Quarry do you think make three-putting LIKELY if you put your approach on the wrong part of the green -- assuming that they're maintained reasonably quick? My impression is: most of them. As I said many threads ago, that's what I like best about the course: The approaches are key, because of the dramatic movement in the greens.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The only thing I can definitively is that I could probably three putt all of them!  

Certainly, the par 5's - 2,5, and 16 all are large, while 14 is very small.  And the short par 4's - particularly 6 and 13 go against conventional wisdom with huge greens.

However, I think what Joe was saying is the putt couldn't be put anywhere close to the hole location.  If you can't get your first putt closer than where you started from, or even keep it on the green, something is probably wrong, unless its just clear the architect wanted a green that made you say , "Huh?"

I would love to hear more opinions on this good philosophical question, even knowing, as I said, that the scorecard guys probably have some trouble with the whole concept.....

[Dan Kelly]

If you can't get your first putt closer than where you started from, or even keep it on the green, something is probably wrong...

I'd agree with that.

But add "easily" between "can't" and "get," and I would completely disagree.

What is wrong with a green that requires an excellent stroke to get a good result -- even after one is on that green?

Greens require excellent strokes to get good results from the fairway (or the rough) all the time!

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

You got it. I could hope to get my first put within 15 feet at best. Also, as Ed alluded to, it was a great deal of fun having to fight for good things on those greens.

I think that there can be a severe test put forth on the greens. My curiosity lies in the "penalty fitting the crime" line of thinking.

Joe

p.s. Bruce, that's very generous comments....what can I do for you?....

[Doug Siebert]

JHancock,

I don't know the hole in question, but imagine it in your mind, and think about where you were relative to the rest of the green and the flag.  Now imagine that the area you were in and 10 feet closer to the hole was closely mown area instead of green?  Make you feel your bogey is more "legitimate"?  How about if you are in rough there, or there's a little pot bunker there?

Its up to the golfer to figure out where the bad spots you can't go are, that might be on the green.  On some fast greens,  that bad spot might be pretty close to the hole (above it, most likely)

Even a pretty flat green can get you in trouble, I learned that nicely at TOC where I once I had a putt of over 150 feet on #10.

The only thing I don't like are screwy double-kidney style greens where you can't putt directly at the hole, but they have a sign or local rule requiring only a putter may be used.

[Joe Hancock]

Doug,

Why is that double kidney shape any different?...Wouldn't that require you to make a putt to a spot on the green, with no chance of holing the shot? Sounds like a similar penalty to me....

Thanks for the reply,

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Interesting discussion that I coincidentally was having with some friends over dinner last night.  They had recently played a course in NE PA called Woodloch Springs by Rocky Roquemore and Jeff Burton which features some very wild greens on a 6600 yard track built on sloping hills in the Poconos.

Their contention was that the greens were super fast this past week and that getting above the hole was tantamount to adding three to the card.  Since they were whining a bit, I asked them why they hit their approach shots above the hole.

Actually, they are a fun bunch who took that comment with the appropriate spirit.  I compared it to the Tom Doak comment about greens where missing them to the wrong side almost ensured that it was impossible to get up and down.  Doak went on to say that no one would complain if there was an adjacent water hazard to the green and a penalty stroke was involved, but that because the ball is still on terra firma, there is some ridiculous expectation that a routine chip and putt should result.

The same should apply to being "on" the green.  There should be places where a two-putt should be an improbability, at best.  

[Will E]

I say bravo to the architect clever enough to use quadrants, or sections of a large green to reward sharp iron play. Dye does this better than anyone I've seen and the greens at Lost Dunes are of the same quality, and appear to be well thought out for the most part. Easily, where Joe hit it on two there could have been bunker requiring a skillful blast to save par. Instead, he was faced with a killer putt. This type of varitey in the challenge exposes strengths and weaknesses of a player, and IMHO adds to the charm of the game. The difficulty in the design is to make the penalty; or reward, worthy of the shot. For those die hard lucky bounce lovers, I say go play BINGO.
Joe, you were a pleasure to golf and dine with.

[Joe Hancock]

Mike,

Now carry that logic ie adjacent water hazards and apply it to any golf course...how many holes are going to have that set-up before you question its' strategy, regardless of the pinpoint laser accuracy one displays?

One of my original questions was directed at how much of this design element is ok on any given course. TOC with a dozen road holes replicated would probably be viewed as an abomination, not necessarily good golf.

I should quit while I'm ahead, as my thoughts and vision are blurring from staying up past bedtime!

Joe

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe;

My eyes are blurring, as well, so I hope we can just agree that too much of any feature gets old very quickly.  I would just argue that the expectation of two putts from anywhere on the green leads to dull and predictable architecture.

Now, if I could just get a decent Stewart Sandwich as a bedtime snack!  

[Joe Hancock]

MIke,

I just read Jeff Fortsons' post on the Met Open, and the word "variety" sprung to life in my mind. I think that's what seperates the good courses from the great ones.

You all are helping me form my own opinions about architecture. I'm also convinced there is a mysterious element about golf courses that won't ever be totally discovered. If that "thing" ever came to light, every golf course built after that would be perfect! Not gonna happen....

Joe

[DMoriarty]

In order for greens to be an integral part of the strategic design of the hole, there has to be some areas where you just dont ever want to be for particular pin placements.  On almost every hole.  

Now it doesnt have to be the same or a similar feature creating the "dont want to be" spot, but if holes are built where the only goal is to get on the green and then maybe one putt or definitely two putt, then any strategic possibilities are negated.  

It is easier to hit a miracle recovery shot from a tough spot on the green than it is from the bottom of a lake.  

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

Augusta National is predicated on this premise on not hitting to the wrong areas of their greens.  

I believe that if you are going to utilize big putting surfaces in the green complexes, one should consider creating "No-Fly Zones".  Some of the most admired green complexes/hole designs utilize this theory:  # 9 at Yale, Biaritz's and Double Greens with a swale, and a personal favorite on mine, #9 at Harbour Town.

Before WWII, Ben Hogan was reportedly punching out his hotel room wall yelling at the top of his lungs, "I can't putt, I can't putt, I can't putt!"  The room grew quiet and then his wife Valerie said, "Why don't you try hitting them closer to the hole?"  Sam Snead did not relate the aftermath of this entirely logical retort in his book, "The Education of a Golfer".

Shivas, all Joe had to do was hit it closer, right?

Personally, we have a two-tiered green at "Bushwood", where if the pin is cut low, its a 5% chance of two putting.  If you hit low to the upper pin placement, its a 50/50 chance of walking off with par.  Given the 70 foot rise to the green from your second shot, the beautiful strategy of this hole is to make sure that you have nothing more than an 8 iron on your approach and nothing less than a 5 iron from your tee shot.  Too much spin, and your ball comes off of the green.  We all know the strategy, the meat is in the execution.

Reporter: "Coach McKay, you've lost 26 NFL games in a row.  What do you think of your team's execution?"

McKay:  "I'm definitely in favor of it!"
 
KLP

[Andy_Lipschultz]

I think a long par 4 where it would take 2 excellent shots just to make it on the green, should have less severe pin placements than the short par 4, where you might be approaching with a wedge and would be expecting to land the ball at a certain spot.

David M: Don't you think La Purisima is good example of this? #10 is about 460 with a long, narrow green. A long, steep bunker is on the right, with a hill of scrub on the left. No tough putts (aside from length). #4 is around 320 with the most severe sloping green on the course.

[tonyt]

We are taught that a regulation par 4 requires two shots to the green, followed by two putts. And then, that par is the score expected of an expert golfer.

If a 20 handicap golfer hits between 3-6 greens per round, then it is ludicrous that he or she can then two putt 14-16 greens in their sleep. The expert golfer (who is expected to be on in regulation), should then be expected to two putt. So the high handicapper should not.

I just think that the Golden Age dead guys would be dismayed to know that a twice a year corporate golfer who doesn't own golf shoes can two putt 10-15 greens on most courses.

Also helps stem the onslaught of the 7400-7600 yard golf course (which stupidly, has greens that every man, woman and child can two putt, provided they didn't die of old age getting from tee to green).

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

I too think this is an interesting topic.

I was thinking about it the other day at my course in ATL. Our course was redone by Fazio a couple of years ago (at a cost that would make management at Haliburton blush).

Fazio made very few changes to the mid-bodies of holes. Other than deepening some greenside bunkers, he made very few changes to green surrounds.

Almost all of his changes were to recontour greens to make them larger and far more severe. He created many locations from which a two-putt was virtually impossible. It was quite clearly the focus of his renovation work.

I've wondered for a long time what Fazio was thinking.

He made the course easier tee to green and much, much harder to putt.

Why? Especially since he had unlimited capital resources at his disposal, why did he focus his efforts on creating "penal" putting surfaces?

The only answer I've come up with (and it is not very good) is that Fazio, wanting to retain at least some resistance to scoring, figured that the typical member will not forgive a designer that makes it harder to get to the green. But that same member doesn't mind three putting more often. Put differently, hazards that impinge on full shots are much more unpopular than difficult putting surfaces.

Dunno. I assume that Fazio thought carefully about what he was doing. I have also assumed that he undertands better than nearly anyone what the typical American golfer wants.

Bottom line is that it was a very odd "renovation," not at all what I had expected.

Any thoughts? Anyone seen this type of remodel at other courses?

Bob

     

[Joe Hancock]

Shivas has the whole thing nailed. I took my punishment without whining and moved on...after all, Shivas and I had some money to make. I couldn't wallow in self pity or I woulda got kicked off the team.

It was one of those situations in golf that make you reflect on what really happened. It was matching wits between player and course, and obviously the architect. Bruce replied that at that point he sees the course as one up, and thats a good way to put it.

Joe

[Steve Lang]

 

Why didn't you pull a wedge instead of the putter for that birdie try, where was your partner?

[Joe Hancock]

Steve,

I've been waiting for someone to ask that! The pin was basically at the beginning of the upslopeof the contour of my affection. Beyond the pin sloped away from me, continuing off the back of the green. I truly was in a spot with no other real otions to get close.

After living a life as a golf course superintendant, I doubt I could pull the trigger on a chip shot off a putting green surface, no matter how close I tried to nip it!

Joe

[Forrest Richardson]

You can always return the the spot from which you last hit and play again. Not only will you get to re-strike the ball, but you can now avoid that lousy position and get closer to the pin.

[Joe Hancock]

Forrest,

I'll rephrase the question, lest yet another person might think I am more concerned about my score than what is inside a good architects head (which was really the intent of my original question!) :

When an architect designs greens contours such that being on the wrong side of a contour amounts to a penalty shot, is it done with that intention? Many examples probably exist, including one I heard about at Lost Dunes...#2, I believe.  

I would bet that many contours are built or utilized without all the playing ramifications fully realized at the time of shaping. Along with that thought, I would guess that the more extreme the contour, the less likely to fully know its' impact on all levels of play.

Oh, and as a heads up, I'm thinking of starting a thread about dead level greens because I'm capable of three putting them!  

Thanks for the replies,

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()